I know I haven’t been as good a blogger lately, but I’ve been feeling like shit, been insanely busy and having a mini creative rut. Tonight, Jamie made me feel a whole lot better, by showing what he really thinks about my intelligent mind-

I shudder to think of what our children are going to turn out like.

I’m getting a film back tomorrow, with some good shots (I hope) of friends and Melbourne. Will scan/post/attribute words to ASAP.

This is political correctness gone mad. The book has lost so much of its charm, and I’m sure Enid Blyton would be rolling in her grave. I’m sure there are other changes, if you know of any, please let me know so I can add them.

Whilst in my second year at uni, I began to unintentionally collect a barrage of metcards in the bottom of my bag. A daily part of metropolitan life, these little cards of annoyance are generally always either left on the train, or expire 3 minutes earlier than required to get through the automatic gates. The only thing that metcards are in fact good at, is being drawn on in a shitty fashion with ballpoint pen whilst waiting for public transport. Over time I have accumulated quite a few which have been drawn on by friends, strangers and of course, Chopper Read.

At an exhibition opening in Collingwood, (or was it Richmond?) after sipping on free beer, making my humble judgement on the work displayed, and making semi-intellectual conversation with artistic types, I elegantly ran to the nearest pub to urgently go to the toilet. On my way back, with two friends accompanying me, I saw who else, but Chopper Read standing hunched over a painting on the ground, which he was splaying paint on out of a squeezy bottle in the manner in which I would put tomato sauce on my chips. Not being one to miss an excellent opportunity to cavort with earless criminals, I allowed myself to be convinced to tap on the window. The result?

My own piece of Chopper paraphernalia, and an exquisite art piece in itself. Perhaps I should switch to using squeezy bottles?

Please, when reading this, understand that I am aware that the application of photoshop can result in some magnificent art, and some artists, for example Bastien Biomechanical Artwork (B. in my blogroll, who I will blog about later on) use digital manipulation in an incredible way. I just get quite frustrated with its overuse and the reliance that people now have on it, particularly when it is used to make their images LOOK like they were taken with film. It is one thing to make photography and image manipulation very accessible to everyone, but photoshop can really taking the artistry out of photography.

“I’ll be an artist yet”

I am yet to understand why people seem intent on ruining photography.

I went to a photographic exhibition a while back, paid my $2 donation at the door, and ended up walking out after 10 minutes in pure awe. not awe, as in “zomg what amazing work, I am truly inspired to better my own” awe. Awe, as in “wtf? I don’t even know what day it is anymore.”

The majority of photos in the exhibition were well taken, with great lighting, subject matter and composition. I was quite impressed with one of the featured photographers, a man called Bradley King- gorgeous black and whites of candid moments and beautiful macro shots with amazing vibrant colours. His photos, although edited digitally, seemed untouched- as though you were looking through the lens yourself at the moment he had captured. Beautiful photography.

The remainder of the work had the potential to be what I would consider “aesthetically pleasing”. That was until the photographer decided they would “move with technology”. They bought Adobe Photoshop CS4 for a cool $800 at Harvey Norman, took a night course, and learnt how to make their photos look like a three year old scribbled on it with a metallic pen, and then threw up on it. I have taken the liberty of taking these steps myself, somewhat-

-downloading photoshop for a cool $0

-playing with it for half an hour

-ruining a perfectly good photo

and I have included a demonstration of how you, too, can become an exhibited digital photographer.

In other news, I got home today and realised that the night before, someone had jumped on top of my car, cracking it and leaving footprints. This is but two weeks after my Valentine’s day package was stolen out my mailbox and thrown in the creek. ARGH. I live really close to the centre of town, which is great. Coincidentally, I also live near said creek, which appears to be some form of overpopulated haven of chroming youths with a penchant for methylated spirits and plastic jackets.

In my search for an appropriate term for these pieces of scum, I went to no other than Urban Dictionary. Upon searching the term “tiprat” I was then linked to the term “Westie”. The first, and voted as most accurate, definition that came up was-

A very under mannered person dealing in drugs and wearing raggy clothes eg: Dada!!!! Mainly found in Wendouree WEST, Ballarat.

“Get out of my garbage bin you fucking westie, it’s not my fault you couldn’t be fucked picking up your Centerlink payment”

Also in the top ten, was-

A westie is a person that wears clothes such as dada, starts fights (mainly in the rotunda outside Bakery Hill McDonalds, Ballarat), deals and uses drugs. The male version of a westie can vary, having tattoos, piercings, is involved with more than one girl and is most likely a father to a child somewhere. The female version of a westie, tends to have more than one child to many different fathers, they may have tattoos and piercings and tend to mouth off at other females.

Westies are generally found in Wendouree West, but can also be found in other comission houses in the Ballarat area.
They have common unoriginal names such as Steph and Joe.

You fucking westie! Get your drug-fucked head out of my fridge, and get out of my house!

Quite hilariously, I live around 3 blocks from Bakery Hills McDonalds, Ballarat.

I cannot take full credit for this post, as my boyfriend Jamie introduced me to this piece from a West Wing episode. I then, however, was on Stumbleupon and one of the first pages I opened was that of the Humanists of Utah, quoting the exact retort that was recited by the President in the episode. It’s genius, and I’d like to share it.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.